Would you consider placement? Considering that the organs were placed between/around the legs, it's possible that Jack had already positioned her legs and feet (as they were found), and was cutting/denuding what was accessible to him from standing on that side of the bed. Maybe denuding below the knee would have meant lifting or shifting her leg. (Of the opinion he cut her legs last.)

Another thought. Are the abrasions on the back of her hand similar to the marks found on the other women's hands?

"Intent", is hardly hidden meaning, or symbolism. All we are looking at is a partial defleshing, or excarnation of the corpse.
Even if we say "for fun" (due to the lack of any real choices), why stop doing something that he is getting 'fun' out of?

The question remains.

The question is a useless one, the fact is he stopped...whether he was bored, tired, confused, ....its not relevant. The fact he didn't take what was taken twice before, is.

I'm guessing that you are asking where Jack was with his assault IF Mary did in fact call out "Oh murder!". I don't know how you consider the canonical murders w/ relation to the Whitechapel killer; however, there is the consideration of the reports that Annie Chapman cried out "no" and Elizabeth may have softly cried out for "help", and these cries supposedly came near the beginning of the attack (as expected). I heavily consider strangulation in these cases as a precursor to his mutilations.

I've been wondering about the bedside table, Jukka, and whether it had been moved. It would seem that it would have been easier to mutilate her face if it was not in the way, would be easier to shift her body from the right side of the bed to the middle, easier to lift and place organs under her head without reaching across. I've been sequencing it such that: 1) he cut her face and body, placing the organs about her body; and then, 2) he moved the table against the bed and cut her legs.

"The question is a useless one, the fact is he stopped...whether he was bored, tired, confused, ....its not relevant. The fact he didn't take what was taken twice before, is."

Hello Michael,

I really don't see how that is significant or how we can reasonably speculate why. It seems reasonable to me that collectors want what they don't have more than obtaining more of what they do have.

c.d.

Had Polly not had her abdomen opened, or had Annie not had her abdomen opened and the uterus taken, or had Kate not had her abdomen opened and a partial uterus taken, I might agree cd. It seems to me however that the victims I mentioned had killers who were obsessed with abdominal cutting, and this resulted in the same organ being taken from 2 of the three. The chest area of the victim was never attacked until Mary Kelly.

The question is a useless one, the fact is he stopped...whether he was bored, tired, confused, ....its not relevant. The fact he didn't take what was taken twice before, is.

I would say both questions are highly relevant, Michael. And I would add that the best answer we can provide is the exact same to both questions; why he did not take the uterus with him and why he cut down to the bone at the thigh in one space only to leave the rest of the flesh on the bone:
Because this was what he WANTED to do.

He WANTED to cut to the bone in one space only on that thigh and he WANTED to leave the uterus with the body (albeit on itīs outside).

We should not loose track of this possibility. We know that the killer seemingly had a good lot of time on his hands, we have no record of anybody disturbing him in his work, and so it must always be a very viable guess that he did all he wanted to and could do, and chose to leave the body afterwards. Job done, everything finished, nothing left to take care of.

Considering the condition in which he left the remains of her corpse, it is difficult to imagine that there would be much more to accomplish (or desecrate). I'm noting that he did not remove Mary Jane's head from her body (even tho he had ample opportunity), which I believe resolves any lingering question of whether total decapitation was ever part of his original intent. I'm guessing, it's possible that he did not want to risk damaging his blade by cutting into bone.